News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2007, 10:40:02 AM »
I guess I would ask why an architect who thinks he is better than the old masters would bother to fix up their overrated work, when he could be so much more productive building great new courses and knocking those old ones off the list fair and square?

Clearly he has taken pity on the members who are stuck playing some old dead guys course when they could be playing a "Fazio".[/size][/b]
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2007, 02:16:55 PM »
Sorry for the late responses but I have been away from the net for a couple of days.  Barney;  its clear why he planted trees at Augusta.  in response to the new equipment and longer distances and in an effort to control scoring ANGC and Fazio have decided to make the course "harder."  Toward that end, they have added a first cut of rough to make it more difficult to spin shots and trees to penalize long but crooked drives.  If one's goal is to limit scoring for the touring pros, especially Tiger, I sympathize with the problem as the distances the ball travels combined with the use of wedges on approaches render many of the classical defenses obsolete.  However, Augusta's original strategic model was St. Andrews which used width and approach angles to allow players almost unlimited choices in deciding how to attack a hole.  The introduction of trees to narrow the fairways ia a penal concept limiting the choice to lay up or take a chance.  Moreover, because it introduces the vertical element, it ainordinately impacts the shorter hitter who previoulsu could try to make up for his lack of distance by approaching from a better angle.  Limiting this option hurts the ability of the shorter hitter to compete.  Thus scores may be kept down but ironically the advantage to the big hitter may be increased, especially when the decreased width is coupled with increased length.  I'll be there this weekend for the first time in a couple of years and try to observe first hand the impact.

Garland;  I'll try to get back to you with some specifics but let me give you a more general observation.  By my way of thinking, the most effective hazards are those which entice players to "flirt" with them because the closer you get to them without going in, the better chance you have on the next shot whether that comes from approach angles, "turbo boosts" avoidance of hazards, views of the green etc.  My experience is that Fazio, more than most, places his hazards for optical purposes as framing devices and the like and that there is little of the risk reward I allude to above.  "Turning bunkers" on the outside of doglegs are a prime example.  Not a universal problem and he is not the only architect to do this  but its symptomatic of the issues I have tried to raise.  More when I have a little more time.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2007, 04:12:33 PM »
I do think golf courses are built better today...and I think most would agree...just like the current trend of Craftsman houses....they my retain the aesthetics and function of the houses built in the 20's and 30's but materials and technigues have evolved over the past 75 years thus allowing for a better house.....
Same goes for a golf course....if an architect strives to build a course be it "minimalist" or traditional design it will be more technically sound because of modern equipment.  PD has the minimalist look but it is a better built golf course than the old dead guy courses.... A golf course doesn't have to look all "Tittied up" just because it is new...JMO


Mike - I disagree with part of your premise.

The vast majority of homes built today are inferior to homes of the earliest 20th century - although they do have more technology applied.  There is less integrity of material and less true craftsmanship/workmanship, and a greater focus on mass-produced efficiencies and materials.  A very small percentage of highly custom homes defy today's conventional processes.

Today's agronomic understanding, emphasis on positive drainage, and capacity to constructively move dirt to make previously unusable sites suitable for golf probably have been improvements in modern golf courses - from those perspectives.

But - Isn't golf course design limited today - at least in the mainstream (whatever that is) - because of technology and the requirement that maintenance/design accommodate modern construction and maintenance equipment - and perhaps in some cases "engineered" stormwater management practices?  Don't those limitations create constraints that didn't exist with most classic, old courses?

Your thoughts?





Steve,

You must be a glass half full kinda guy.  Designers in all fields have always embraced what new tech does for them and tried to find the possibilities, creating new design forms in the process.  Its a good thing.  It's not limiting, its liberating.

Equipment companies have been adapting to gca work as much as gca's have been adapting to equipment.  Its not anything other than a positive factor in design.

However, there is always a nostalgia factor in viewing any design work.  Studies show that many folks think the old days were better, even though by most standards - money, time, etc. - they actually have it better now.  

Something in the human being makes us remember the past - including old golf courses - fondly.  And, I think this group is among the worst offenders, if thats the right word, of anyone!

Shelley,

I think we could apply my above statement to many classic old courses and their strategy. Just MHO.  If you wanted, I could probably pick a dozen Ross or whatever holes, that have similar bunker patterns to a dozen you pick for Fazio.

Even if they are different, they ought to be!  The game is played so differently today, that carry bunkers (of any kind, but esp. those at 150 yards or so) actually don't work as well as the old masters thought.  For that matter, most people have found that not that many people are tempted to play as close to hazards as the old guys must have imagined.  If you put a fw hazard out there, most golfers are smart enough to aim away.

To add to Tom Doak's statement with a slightly different twist - although he himself has also said this - why would anyone doing a new design seek to just copy what has been done before rather than move forward with new designs?  Or, at least incremental improvements to concepts previously tried?

All of that said, I agree that its striking how little Faz talks about strategies, and how much he talks of making it playable for the average golfer.  I think in this day and age, the one size fits all golf course is going the way of the dodo, and Faz knows that he is designing for a golfer who couldn't benefit from or care less about strategy.

And, as the "appreciation of gca by the average golfer" thread suggests, they couldn't make use of the strategy if their life depended on it, and it clearly doesn't.

Jeff

PS - this response inspired by Barney.....but its still substantially true!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2007, 10:26:32 PM »
If you put a fw hazard out there, most golfers are smart enough to aim away.

By smart do you mean, smart enough to avoid the hazard but leave them no shot to the pin?


Quote
and Faz knows that he is designing for a golfer who couldn't benefit from or care less about strategy.

That is not golf by my definition.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2007, 11:19:25 PM »
I posted this before....

If you live in Boston, you can ask Mr. Fazio about his design philosphies next Wed. morning...



Fazio Business Breakfast Forum

On Wednesday, April 11 Endicott College will be hosting a Business
Breakfast Forum with world renowned golf course architect Tom Fazio.  Tom
was named the top American Golf Architect in a poll conducted by Golf
Digest in 1991.  That year the magazine announced the establishment of a
biannual award to recognize excellence in golf course design, which
Fazio also won in 1993 and 1995.  In 1995, he also received the Old Tom
Morris Award given by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of
America to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the game.

Fazio's peers hold his work in such high esteem because year after year
he produces wonderful, playable golf courses that are full of drama and
beauty. More than a dozen of his designs have been chosen either first
or second in the annual rankings of best new gold courses since Golf
Digest began publishing that list.

As part of the breakfast, Tom will talk about some of his recent and
future golf projects, as well as talking a bit about the future of the
game of golf.


Details of the breakfast are as follows:

Date:  April 11, 2007
Time: 7:30-9:00am
Location: Tupper Manor, Endicott College
Cost: $50 per person, includes a breakfast buffet
Registration: Please contact Nadine Bolen at
978-232-2017 or nbolen@endicott.edu
Note:    Seating is limited for this event
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2007, 10:55:11 AM »
...
And, as the "appreciation of gca by the average golfer" thread suggests, they couldn't make use of the strategy if their life depended on it, and it clearly doesn't.
...

As an average golfer I have been staying off of that thread on purpose, because I despise the condescending attitude of the scratch golfer that would label the average golf thusly. Just because the strategy of the average golfer is not always the same as the strategy of the scratch golfer, does not mean the average golfer can not and will not use the strategies available.
 >:(
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2007, 04:25:57 PM »
Jeff,  Thanks for your thoughts but I think I'm closer to Mike on this one.  I'll concede that even the old masters placed bunkers and other hazards in less than optimal strategic positions from time to time.  However I'll suggest that they didn't advertise that they thought this lack of strategy was an advancement in the art.  Moreover, there were a lot more hazards that exhibited the characteristics that I favored in my prior posts than you'll find in Fazio's work.

My real problem is your suggestion that good players will always find a way to avoid the bunker (or other hazard) even if flirting with it would give them a significant strategic advantage.  Taken to its logical conclusion, strategy devolves to missing all hazards regardless of the line needed to avoid them.  Thus the placement of hazards  would dictate the intended line of play as opposed to providing options.  The only "risk/reward" concern would be whether the player could carry the hazard as he would scrupulously avoid it by affording each hazard a wide berth.  If that is the case, then Fazio is probably right.  Strategy becomes irrelevant and the only things that count are length, beauty, and green speeds.  I suggest there is a little more to architecture than that and much of it comes down to creating holes that are interesting to play repeatedly.  Much of that interest comes out of strategic considerations.  

Finally, while I concede that the better player (wherever you draw that line) may have different strategic concerns and a greater number of options to consider in playing a given shot or hole, I would suggest that any player who has an idea where his next shot is likely to go can be required to think his way around a course by good architecture.  Courses that provide such a challenge wll become favorites for all types of players assuming other factors (cost, conditioning etc) are reasonably equal.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2007, 04:45:01 PM »
To see SFGC rated so low is a shame, I guess my work drove it down, or else it lost ground with the banishment of "tradition" and I am sure most GOLF DIGEST panelists have not actually seen the changes.

SFGC has some other problems other than the new holes.  The new holes are no better or worse than the old holes so I would call it a wash.  Some of the new tees are out of step with the course, like 2,3,9, and especially 15. These are so far back the course has lost some of its charm.

Persoanlly I think panelists rate SFGC slightly low on design variety and probably conditioning.  SFGC is in dire need of top dressing the fairways to build a sand base like Olympic did.  They water the golf course morning, noon and night and under those fairways is mud, nothing else.  Its pretty to look at but when you peel it back they need to do something about the conditions.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2007, 07:14:47 PM »
Jeff,  Thanks for your thoughts but I think I'm closer to Mike on this one.  I'll concede that even the old masters placed bunkers and other hazards in less than optimal strategic positions from time to time.  However I'll suggest that they didn't advertise that they thought this lack of strategy was an advancement in the art.  Moreover, there were a lot more hazards that exhibited the characteristics that I favored in my prior posts than you'll find in Fazio's work.

My real problem is your suggestion that good players will always find a way to avoid the bunker (or other hazard) even if flirting with it would give them a significant strategic advantage.  Taken to its logical conclusion, strategy devolves to missing all hazards regardless of the line needed to avoid them.  Thus the placement of hazards  would dictate the intended line of play as opposed to providing options.  The only "risk/reward" concern would be whether the player could carry the hazard as he would scrupulously avoid it by affording each hazard a wide berth.  If that is the case, then Fazio is probably right.  Strategy becomes irrelevant and the only things that count are length, beauty, and green speeds.  I suggest there is a little more to architecture than that and much of it comes down to creating holes that are interesting to play repeatedly.  Much of that interest comes out of strategic considerations.  

Finally, while I concede that the better player (wherever you draw that line) may have different strategic concerns and a greater number of options to consider in playing a given shot or hole, I would suggest that any player who has an idea where his next shot is likely to go can be required to think his way around a course by good architecture.  Courses that provide such a challenge wll become favorites for all types of players assuming other factors (cost, conditioning etc) are reasonably equal.

Shelly,

Points taken. However, I would still be interested in randomly picking the best of modern vs old holes (as originally configured) and debating the relative merits of strategy.  Basically, I think that much of the support for the old guys is based as much on nostalgia, and comparing the best of the old with the handiest (usually newest) Fazio course, as it is real merit.  I know a true comparison is impossible, and debate is inevitable.

As to "missing hazards at all costs" and "design merely dictating the line" frankly, I feel that that is just what is happened to design, as influenced by current good players, and IMHO, starting with the impact of one Jack Nicklaus as player and designer.  He played to miss hazards, and was the first I recall to emphasize definition to a then nearly unprecedented degree, albeit, it has been building slowly for decades (at least based on my takes on Golden Age writings)

In fact, I was kind of alluding to the fact that if you asked most/many good players today, they would tell you that design should dictate, suggest, and assist the "proper" line of play, avoid confusion, etc.  Also, modern equipment does make hitting greens from different angles easier than hitting from a bunker near a preferred angle, and players have adapted to the sum total of trends in golf, equipment, and maintenance.

That Fazio has embraced ideas that others developed and promoted to the highest degree right now is not suprising.  In fact, he, to my understanding, purposely built his career on being the signature architect who built playable courses (unlike Dye and Jack) and it might not suit all tastes, including yours or mine, but obviously, he hit the market right on the bulls eye.

He realizes that those rich cats in Palm Desert where there are many high end Faz courses are largely interested in playing before it gets hot, enjoying the scenery, and getting home for a few belts and an afternoon nap before going out to dinner.  I doubt that their dinner conversations trend towards the subtley of strategic design to any signifigant degree.  I bet the do discuss what color petunias the super will plant around the clubhouse this year.

Fazio knows his audience.  Nuff said.  As for a discussion board like this one, the questions surrounding strategy are more along the lines of "Do Golden Age strategies Still Work with all the other changes in Golf?"  I actually think they still work for average golfers, although the number of optional carry fw bunkers should be, and have been reduced from the GA.  I don't think they work as well for top players for reasons I think I have discussed, and would never design soley based on nostalgia myself.  I look at hole a hole will be played by many today.

Garland,

I agree that average players have different strategies and a good design considers those, including laying up, playing to the center of the green, etc.  See above.

I hope that doesn't sound too glib, and I am still somewhat inspired by Barney ;) and his posting style.....Whether Golden Age strategies are the be all - end all of golf design that can never be topped is a worthy and provocative discussion to be had.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2007, 07:49:05 PM »
..
Finally, while I concede that the better player (wherever you draw that line) may have different strategic concerns and a greater number of options to consider in playing a given shot or hole, I would suggest that any player who has an idea where his next shot is likely to go can be required to think his way around a course by good architecture.  Courses that provide such a challenge wll become favorites for all types of players assuming other factors (cost, conditioning etc) are reasonably equal.

Cost being reasonably equal! We can dream can't we? This got me thinking. What will be the cost of playing a Fazio in 50 years, vs. what will be the cost of playing a Doak in 50 years?

For those of you who know better, is there an analogy with the old dead guys? E.g. Benelow built well framed course vs. MacKenzie build strategic courses? What is the current cost of playing their courses? Who had the highest percentage survive?, survive in tact?
Was there anybody that built Fazio style courses in the golden age? Did any survive?

The reason I ask if we can dream is that one may hypothesize that strategic courses appreciate faster or more than others so the cost will never stay or be reasonable equal.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

John Kavanaugh

Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2007, 07:57:44 PM »
Garland,

What makes you think that Bendelow did not build strategic courses.  I think it was genuis to turn around the typical design of Mac so all the ob was left instead of right.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2007, 10:45:09 AM »
John,

Sorry, but you misunderstood me. I don't know much if anything about the courses Benelow did. I was asking who might be the analogous designers of the day, and basically used Benelow as a placeholder since I am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a Fazio analog on my own.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2007, 11:35:08 AM »
Jeff,
       Thanks again for a candid response.  It now appears that we don't disagree on much, at least with respect to Fazio.  You suggest that he has made a marketing decision to soft pedal strategic concepts in order to reach a high end market that is more interested in appearance than substance.  I don't know if that is his motivation and I challenge the proposition that in order to obtain "beauty" or even "eye candy" it is necessary to sacrifice strategic substance. However the formula appears to work quite well from a financial standpoint even if it leaves many of us cold when weighing the "artistic" merits.  But it is precisely from this standpoint that I am troubled by Fazio's claim that the modern works (read his own) are superior to the golden age.  After all, this was the starting point of the discussion.  I concede he is wildly successful financially.  I concede he is a tremendously talented creator of appealing landscapes.  I concede that he builds consistently playable and enjoyable golf courses.  But I continue to be troubled by his only occasional willingness or ability to stretch and build great or unusual golf courses.  Not only has he found his formula; it appears to be one that is less than he could achieve. I submit that his best courses do not match up with the best of the golden age when considering strategic merit and originality.

Regarding your remarks about the irrelevancy of strategy which you assert began with Nicklaus, I fear you are right for many of the modern pros using the new equipment.  Unless courses were lengthened to over 8,000 yards the bomb and gouge crowd can ignore angles, particularly if greens continue to get faster and flatter.  The only way to try and control them is to return to a more penal style of architecture which is far  more boring.  Alternatively, firm and fast conditions like those at last year's Open Championship require greater shotmaking skills and reintroduce elements of strategy.

But you also noted that for the non professional strategic courses continue to "work."  Since very few course host professional tournaments it would be best to encourage design aimed at amateur play.  But because most golfers "learn" their architecture by watching the pros and listening to their comments, those wishing to build "great" golf courses or "improve" older ones often start with a model ill suited for encouraging truly interesting play for the club player.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2007, 03:14:22 PM »
Shelley,

If it's not to much trouble, would you list the significant Fazio courses you have played and some of the significant golden age courses you have played.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fazio and his design philosophies
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2007, 04:48:06 PM »
Garland;  you're beginning to sound a little bit like a less aggressive Matt Ward.  I can't promise that this list is exhaustive since I don't have my records here but it will be close.

Fazio:
          Butler National
          The Glen Club
          Lake Nona
           Galloway National
          Stonebridge
          Conway Farms
          Hartefield National
           Barton Creek
            Golf Club of Tennessee
          Grayhawk Raptor
          Pelican Hill (both)

Golden Age

           NGLA
           Garden City
            Winged Foot
            Maidstone
            Yale
            Pasatiempo
            Riviera
            LACC
            Shoreacres
            Crystal Downs
            Skokie
             OFCC (both)
            Medinah
             Just about everything else in and around Chicago built during that era.
            Merion
            Philadelphia Cricket
             Pebble
             Olympic
              Cal Club
              Kittansett
              Quaker Ridge
               Pinehurst
              Salem
               Oyster Harbors
              Ridgeview
I know I'm short a few on both lists and it doesn't compare to many of my friends even when complete but if you're looking for a frame of reference this should suffice.

As to further comparisons, I read Fazio's book and took him seriously the same way I read the works of the golden age architects.

I don't know if this adds anything but I hope it answers your question.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back